Re: MS going for the niche markets!
>>"Yes, you are probably correct that my arguments may are flawed and probably badly formulated. Unfortunately I was neither blessed with the gift of rhetoric nor that of public speaking so I have to make do with what I have."
I am not attacking you over style or presentation. My issue was that I pointed out basic flaws in your argument - logical flaws not ones of preference or belief - and you responded to my post calling it the usual think of the minorities diatribe. That I objected to. I'm quite happy to debate civilly with everyone but wont accept misrepresentation of what I say.
>>"In my mind the point of marriage is to begin the foundation for a familly. A family has figures; a mother, a father and eventually children ( 1..n). This is my conception of a familly, I am sure that many, if not most, share this conception."
See, now this to my mind is a far more cogent argument from you than your initial post. In your initial post you were attempting to find superficial reasons to support a pre-existing conclusion - that homosexual marriages should not exist. As is typical where the desired conclusion is placed ahead of arguments, there were logical flaws. The above however, is something that can more reasonably be debated. And indeed, with that specific point above I largely agree - children should have a stable and reassuring environment growing up hence the need for a solid commitment (typically called marriage). Without that need, two people might as well just live out their relationship's natural span based not on legal and social commitment, but based on respect for each other and desire to be together. I.e. no need for marriage (though some may still want).
conception of a familly, I am sure that many, if not most, share this conception.
>>Within a familly, I believe that for a child to grow within a healthy framework, he will need a father to be fatherely ( something a mother cannot provide) and a mother to be motherly( something that a Father cannot provide), The relationship that he will have with either parent will be different, often learning the same things but from different points of view
Here I somewhat disagree. I reject the idea that only a mother can be "motherly" or a father "fatherly". These are for the most part socially enforced roles, not intrinsic ones. There are plenty of fathers more tender and caring than many women are, and many women who are more... well I don't know what it is you think "fatherly" means, but lets go with protective, aggressive or whatever. It really doesn't matter - pick any trait and you'll find plenty of women who have it buckets more than most men and vice versa for men over women. We're people first, not a sex. That these cases are not uncommon should be demonstrable to anyone with a reasonable social life.
There was a study some time ago of lesbian couples that found a baby would start to put parents into a father & mother role whether the female-female parents wanted it to or not. The child would simply start to favour one over the other despite their best efforts. But I saw nothing in that study to show that a child is harmed by one of those roles being filled by a woman (or man), only that children were predisposed to do so.
The thing is, all else being equal it probably is better for a very young child to have one parent of each sex because that provides a greater breadth of role-models. But things never are "all else being equal". Rate parenting quality on some hypothetical and impossible to actually create scale of 1...100 and say you get +2 points for having role-models of both genders. How much does that compare to the +20 of having two parents who really love each other, or the -30 of having one of those parents be unfeeling and distant? It doesn't. And I could even make a case that same-sex couples can have hidden benefits such as not propagating unhealthy social expectations. I am a feminist. In any traditional couple you are likely to have slightly different domestic behaviour between the male and female parent. A female child will likely more identify with the female parent and thus gender-based roles are perpetuated. Whereas a female child with two male parents would not run that risk.
Of course there are some benefits to a male-female parent unit. It can be handy for a child to have someone of their own sex to talk to - especially when they hit puberty. But that doesn't mean that any given same-sex couple is going to be bad as parents. Or even that these problems are especially difficult to overcome!
Basically, your argument based on the idea of marriage being about children is a supportable position to some extent (imo), but not your corollary that only male-female can be good parents.
>>"Because of this thread I had a quick read up on homesexuality, "ephebic love", within the greek, Roman empires as I feel that they probably represent contemporary society better than any other. It seems as though once more history is repeating itself...."
This, I regard as just some bizarre perversion of an Appeal To Tradition fallacy. And no, I don't think we're going down the same path as the Romans because we're becoming more tolerant of homosexuality.